President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com) 557
President Barack Obama has ordered a full review of hacking activities aimed at disrupting last month's presidential election, media outlets reported Friday citing a top White House official. The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the office. From a report on Reuters: "The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Hillary Lost Because of Her (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Democrats still can't accept that there are apparently a bunch of states located between California and New England where people don't buy into the idea that all white people are evil racists and that 3-year-olds should be able to create their own genders. They just assumed that all that land that they only see from their plane windows must be empty or something.
Oh please don't ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans don't like to be all lumped into the pile of anti-science Bible thumpers and we Dems don't like to be lumped in with those nutty people who interview a 9 year-old about her "transgender" choices like she was an adult.
I love my NPR (I know! Surprising!) but when I heard the interview a couple of weeks ago with this THIRD grader about her/his gender issues, I wanted call in and yell, "Get a fucking grip! She's 9 years old and we called them Tomboys when I was a kid!"
Oh, don't get me started. Thi
Re: (Score:2)
What a world you live in.
I'm sure if you try hard enough you can find other things fringe democrats have brought up and then you can pretend that applies to everybody too.
By applying dumb stereotypes to all Democrats you're no better than someone applying dumb stereotypes to all Red Staters.
Re: (Score:2)
Write down your own idiotic predictions and watch.
Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary lost because of real news about how she was a terrible candidate, not because of fake news or hate speech or the Russians or any other conspiracy theory.
The other day, Jordan Klepper (The Daily Show) interviewed a Trump supporter about Trump picking insiders and banking executives for the various Cabinet and agency positions (with regard to his promise to "drain the swamp") and the guy being interviewed said, (paraphrasing) "Well, you want the best qualified people for the jobs, even if they have questionable things in their past." Jordan replied, "I think that was Hillary Clinton's entire platform."
Hillary might not have been a great candidate or universally likable, but don't pretend that there wasn't (and isn't) any fake news and/or hate speech about her being circulated by conservatives and Republicans or that those things didn't have any affect on people's opinions and election decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but don't pretend . . .
You forget your audience.
Re:She won (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying she won the popular vote (and only by a bit at that) misses the point. We have an electoral college just for situations like this. The majority of the country lives in a handful of states. The voters in those states should not be able to run roughshod over the country, hence why we have an electoral college that's based on the representatives each state gets. Otherwise, east and west coast states would dictate everything about this country.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't argue your larger point. We live in a representative republic, not a democracy.
But this "and only by a bit at that" is demonstrably false.
While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008. It's more than 2,7000,000 people voted for Hillary over Trump. It's not politically meaningful *today*, but it is something.
Re:She won (Score:5, Informative)
While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008. It's more than 2,7000,000 people voted for Hillary over Trump.
I'm going to assume you mean by actual number of votes and not the percentage. Either way that's simply not true.
By the actual margin:
1972 Nixon won the popular vote by almost 18 million votes
1984 Reagan won popular vote by almost 17 million votes
1964 Johnson popular vote by almost 16 million
GWB is in 19th place, for the most popular votes, in the 2004 election by getting just over 3 million votes more than Kerry. .
If you want to look at the percentage, she's at 1.95%. Which is way down on the list. Harding, Coolidge, FDR, Nixon and LBJ all beat their opponents by over 20% of the popular vote. Grover Cleveland won election in 1892 with a 3% margin of the popular vote.
Trump won by electoral votes but lost the popular vote by 1.95%. Rutherford Hayes (-3%) and John Quincy Adams (-10.44%) both won the electoral votes but lost the popular vote by a larger percentage than Trump did.
Re: (Score:2)
The voters in those states should not be able to run roughshod over the country
If that were the purpose of the electoral college, the number of electors would not be based mostly on the population of the state. There are some federalist bits around the edges of the electoral college, but that's not its main reason for being... its main reason for being is the electors themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
So a system where only 7 or 8 states matter in the election is better? At least under the popular vote a voters vote in Kanses (as an example) matters. As it stands now the individual's vote doesnt matter there and in 40 other states because where their electoral votes go is practically pre ordained.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have shown too many rats packed into a closed space start fighting among themselves. Should this distorted worldview run the entire nation?
We are supposed to be a free country, not an unlimited parliamentary democracy where whoever gets 51% gets to pass any law they like.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's currently whoever gets 48%ish of the vote and dropping...
Re: (Score:2)
If we hadn't spent the last 100 (and particularly the last 8) years concentrating power in the executive branch, those states on the coasts wouldn't be controlled by anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. What fantasy land are you living in? Have you stepped foot on a college campus or in a big city recently?
Re: She won (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see, they forced me to buy ridiculously expensive health insurance I don't want. If I was a speaker on a college campus they don't agree with, yes. And certainly their fascism makes me second guess everything I say in public and at family gatherings. Yes, they restrict the sales of my product, and yes they like to tear down my campaign signs.
Re: (Score:2)
She didn't "win" a damned thing! Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have the electoral college so that the "more people" in California and New York don't get to rule the rest of the country. WTF does "gerrymandering" (re-drawing legislative districts to favor a particular party) have to do with the presidential election which is done on a state-wide basis(except for 2 electoral votes in Maine which are awarded by district)?
Russian hackers != Russian government. It's true that the Russian government
Re: (Score:2)
Re:She won (Score:5, Informative)
Haha, yeah, because screw elections right? That's absolutely NOT why the founders created the EC. The EC was created so that a candidate who might be able to win on popularity contest (which is what elections essentially are), but are otherwise unfit to rule a nation not make it into the White House. This election is an entirely different situation where the "winner" was really a loser in all regards who only "won" because of a Constitutional Loophole. The EC should act more like a confirmation system where the POPULAR VOTE winner gets to be confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't disagree with that, but is there any promise Trump hasn't already broken?
They're two sides of the same coin. His comes along with blatant racism, misogyny, populism, and cronyism.
But he sure knew how to play the game better. I'll give him that. Which is ironic given that she's a career politician.
If the Dem's don't learn the real lesson from that, there's no hope for them either.
Re: (Score:2)
For now the bulk of Trump's die hard supporters will continue cheering for him as he breaks promise after promise. The Rust Belt voters didn't vote for him for anything he said, he was indeed their version of a Brexit vote, a way of sticking to the elites real and perceived. I doubt many voters in these areas hold any illusions as to his capabilities.
What will be interesting isn't four years of Trump's "Twitter presidency", it will be how the Democrats respond, because in all likelihood, a man of Trump's ag
Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her (Score:5, Insightful)
The most ironic part of the Trump election.
'Stick it to the elites!' by putting them in positions of power everywhere in government. Especially those who have given him millions.
Re: (Score:2)
And he's giving the electorate even more of it. It's fascinating to hear that it was Bob Dole behind his phone call to Taiwan, what with ol' Bob and all his "interests" in Taiwan...
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer the simpler reason.
She's a fucking world-class liar.
You cannot have that simple reason, because it is provably false. Trump lies way more than Clinton. His entire business "empire" is a ponzi lie. He lied about things he was on camera saying just weeks before. He lies so much he's afraid to actually sue anyone because he's afraid of being under oath, so he lies about intending to sue them. The guy is one of the worst liars in human history.
If honesty had really been a primary issue, Trump would have lost badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Same and worse for Trump. And since that is the case, it cannot be a discriminating factor.
Re: (Score:3)
If truthfulness was a determining factor in the election Trump would have lost to the third party candidates. He literally would lie about statements he had made less than an hour beforehand. I think one of the political accountability orgs did some kind of analysis of one of the debates and I think they tallied up about 10-20% of Clintons statements as misleading/somewhat untruthful, Trumps statements were closer to the 50% truthful region and most of his stuff was in the lies/blatant lies category.
You're thinking of politifact. [politifact.com] Trump scored far worse than Clinon on tuthfulness.
Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. Trump more less won on a "change" platform as opposed to Clinton's "status quo" platform. All other things aside, Bernie would have at least presented an alternative "change" platform to choose from. Particularly given that most pundits attribute Trumps win to disenfranchised white unionized manufactures workers and Bernie's socialist background, would have likely seen many of those Trump votes disappear in those key states.
Dem futures (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends on how the DNC election turns out. Keith Ellison has the baggage about his Farrakhan ties and past statements about Judaism, but Bernie can still put up a less tainted Progressive candidate to head the party: it's not like the party is short of them.
It's no longer a Clinton dominated party: the real battle would be b/w the Bernie/Warren Progressives vs the Rust Belt Centrists like Tim Ryan. This will be an easy battle for the former to win, since the Dems are a bi-coastal party of New England (Bernie/Warren's turf), New York to DC corridor, and the Left Coast. They ain't people left to reward the states that abandoned them - states like MI, WI or PA. Martin O'Malley is not likely to win, Dean has dropped out, so the race remains right now b/w Ellison and Jamie Harrison - the head of the party in a deep red state that's not gonna flip - SC.
But GP is right. It was conventional wisdom that Bernie couldn't win if he was the nominee, being the socialist that he is. But it was also conventional wisdom that Trump couldn't win. In reality, it's been 25 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, so terms like socialist or communist do not have the negative connotations to people that they had even during the Gorby era. He shocked Clinton in battleground states like MI, and would have kept the blue wall intact. In fact, given how Trump had slipped vs Cruz in red states, had Bernie been the candidate, given how well he did against Clinton in many of them, he might even have flipped some states like UT
The public (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if the voting public are considered stakeholders.
Abuse of power? (Score:5, Funny)
"The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the [sic] office".
Why? It would make better sense if the results were turned over to Mr Trump, who will be in a position to learn from them and take any appropriate action.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama runs his mouth or takes pointless actions such as these do give appearance of "doing something."
He's mostly a disappointment, thought he'd accomplish certain things but instead gives us Republican healthcare plan that further fluffs up big insurance and big pharmy and big healthcare chain, fraud and scam energy company support, making Bush/Cheney wiretaps and violation of privacy even worse....disgusting.
Re:Abuse of power? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the results are going to other people ("a range of stakeholders", which includes Congress) the information is there for Trump if he wants it. By having it delivered to him before he leaves office, that puts a timetable on it. Otherwise it's "Hey, go do this thing for me. Also, I'm out of here", which in my experience results in nothing happening.
Re:Abuse of power? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the [sic] office".
Why? It would make better sense if the results were turned over to Mr Trump, who will be in a position to learn from them and take any appropriate action.
Publicly, at least, Trump is denying Russian involvement, facts be damned [time.com]. I am going to give the current President the benefit of the doubt and say he's doing it to help persuade Donald Trump that it's something he needs to take seriously.
I don't think it's a ploy to score political points because there are none to score.
Re: (Score:2)
...he's doing it to help persuade Donald Trump that it's something he needs to take seriously.
We can add that to the list of things Trump needs to take seriously. He said (tweeted) the Electoral College is a "disaster" and, for months, said the election was "rigged", but that's apparently all okay now because he won. The man can't keep even the things he's said straight and seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
So he can decide what to declassify.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with a lot of what you say but how would Hillary "rig her own primary"? People voted, she won the vote.
Just because she was favored by her party (a political party favoring a candidate!? *gasp!*) doesnt mean the election was rigged.
Biden's going to be 78 (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're forgetting how many 'Blue Dog' and social liberals there are. The Republicans have a much stronger position because they have two basic issues: Low taxes and no regulation for the wealthy and right wing evangelicalism for the bible thumpers (with all the guns, none of the Gays or Abortions). It's real easy to keep those groups together.
Dems have to balance our economic regressive/social liberals with socialists, environmentalists and civil rights activists. We're a much, much looser coalition. That's why Hilary couldn't get the vote out. She was walking too fine a line and tripped over it.
The sad thing is things are probably going to have to go to shit for 80% of the population before we start seeing progress again. It's been like this since I was a kid. Republicans deregulation and wreck the economy, Dems move in and fix it up, folks get complacent and want the Republicans back because instead of slow steady growth they promise the world. Lather, rinse, repeat. Savings and Loan,
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't have any policies OR experience to attack, to be fair.
Pretty clever at that honestly, to just spout two different things depending on whether you're on twitter or in a debate. Nobody had any solid idea what they guy actually wanted to DO policy wise.
DHS included? (Score:2)
Hacking review !== Election results review (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just an honest review of what MAY have happened as a result of bad players trying to fiddle with the election. This is a really good idea to help ensure future presidential elections being trustworthy and valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really good idea to help ensure future presidential elections being trustworthy and valid.
And so are the recounts. They've already proven Michigan has a lot of work to do to beef up the security/integrity of their ballot system... regardless of who benefits, which will be nobody. Like using seals properly and not using easily or already ripped ballot bags to preserve the paper record.
Recounts of a certain number of precincts at random should be mandatory, and if those recounts show problems, the recount should be expanded automatically, by law. If your state elections division does not do thi
NAFTA killed the Midwest. (Score:2)
Fix the system (Score:2, Insightful)
Bickering aside about who did the cheating, can we all just agree on two things?
1: Shitcan the electronic voting machines and stick with something that's verifiable. Perhaps, the paper ballets that we've already been using for a long time.
2: Require a verifiable ID to vote. At least, something as good as what is required to buy a beer.
If not, then can we point our fingers at the people who object to the above?
To quote... (Score:5, Funny)
Stakeholders - don't forget the most one (Score:4, Informative)
The major stakeholder in this process, which is the American voter, is the one who should receive a full report. Not just the government officials.
"Deep dive" includes voting machine forensics? (Score:3)
I RTFA and didn't catch whether this supposed review is going to include a formal forensics analysis of voting machines, at least in swing states where something of this nature would have been beneficial and anomalies in exit polls vs. actual numbers on machines happened. There were states that flat out denied Stein's request of forensics on the machines, which I think is completely ridiculous. If you're gonna punch the same commands into possibly pwned machines, of COURSE you're gonna get the same numbers (both on memory card and internal "redundant" memory). That is *not* a "recount".
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Informative)
He has not been ousted. His term is coming to an end.
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't pop a Republican's fantasy bubble. It's all they have.
They also have the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and a majority of State Governors and Legislatures. Not bad for a party living in la la land.
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy to do that when you tell the best lies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the left sticking to the illusion that being right, but still being cunts, is what anyone wants.
Watch Kaine's VP debate performance to understand where you all went wrong. I kept telling my left friends to stop being dicks the last 2 years, but you just insist. And even when it fails, you just keep, twisting, the, knife.
Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, if you switch "conservative" for "liberal" or even maybe "liberals and moderates" in your statement you get a pretty insitefull comment
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The delusion is thinking the popular vote matters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right. This whole "popular vote" bullshit is akin to the ass kissing student complaining that they didn't get the best score on the test because they wrote the longest essay. I'm sorry, the grading scale isn't based on popular votes, it's based on electoral ones. You gotta win the votes that count... The votes that don't count are kind of irrelevant to any discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do people vote strategically based on the rules of the election? If they do, then the results of the election cannot be interpreted on how they would play out under a different set of rules. If we DID elect based on the popular vote and re-ran under those rules, the results would likely be drastically different. Talking about what the popular vote results were in an electoral based race is just as stupid as discussing who got the most forward yardage in a football game. Interesting to statistics buffs, but
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine, then someone should write up an amendment, get it passed and ratified by 2/3 of the States. Nobody is really a 'proponent' of it, as far as I know, it just hasn't had any real congressional Opponents who weren't only griping about losing elections. It's just not been changed because that's the way it has been, and changing it is hard.
Well, the small or less populated states that would lose their influence (or, as they see it, representation) are proponents of it. Getting 2/3 of the states to ratify such an amendment wouldn't be easy, when it would mean that most of those states would have to accept the presidential choice of California and a few northeastern states every election.
You'd be asking them to ratify an amendment that formalizes their insignificant role of "flyover country".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't vote without a voter registration card or some other proof of who you are (e.g. an electric bill), and you can't vote unless you have at some point properly registered to vote, which you can't do without a SSN. So for illegals to vote, they would have to either commit outright identity theft to register fraudulently (which they screen for and actively remove when found) or steal somebody else's mail and vote in his/her name (which would likely be discovered when that other person went to vote).
In
Re: (Score:2)
The court is currently sitting on 4-4 split on conservative vs liberal, with 1 vacant spot. Trump will nominate a conservative. Republicans control the senate which means that they will have no problem approving his nomination. That will put the court 5-4 again. If any conservative justices retire during his term, they will be replaced and the same will hold. If any liberals leave, then they will get replaced with conservatives making the split 6-3 or even 7-2.
Basically - the supreme court belongs to t
Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Informative)
Unless there is a retirement or death, the supreme court will be back where it started since the vacancy is from a conservative.
Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score:4, Informative)
The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.
That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.
Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.
That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.
The Senate was making a mockery of their role.
This had nothing to do with whether they approved of the justice, rather they were claiming that the President didn't have the mandate to carry out his role in nominating one.
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has gone far beyond and above in de-legitimizing his own Presidency, he doesn't need help!
Really? What did he do that was "far beyond and above in de-legitimizing his own Presidency" when compared to the birther movement?
And let's not talk about who fed that conspiracy.
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Not ousted, merely at the end of his second and final term (and one wonders if the 22nd Amendment didn't exist if the election might have been rather different).
2. He's still the lawful and constitutional POTUS until January, so he has ever right to order such a review.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Informative)
Amendment, not Article. There is no Article 22 (not even an article 12 [washingtonpost.com] - the Constitution contains only seven articles). Amendment 22 sets a limit of two terms for the President. Amendment 12 specifies how the Electoral College works in selecting the President and Vice President and was added in reaction to the election of 1800 and was ratified in 1804, well after the original had been written.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the ammendment that puts a layer of government between the people's vote and the office being voted on? A layer of government between the people's will and the government? A system in which party elites can simply tell voters to go screw themselves and then vote for whoever they want? I thought conservatives were supposed to hate government interference and elites telling them what to do.
I suppose that since it's won them a couple of elections these last couple of decades you cant blame them for ab
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:4, Insightful)
You are smoking something... The electoral college primarily exists to reduce the chances of mob rule. The power of State governments (which our country is founded upon) but for stupid "democracy" reasons got nerfed when the Senate became just another House of Representatives that was horribly not representative of the population. The states no longer have any power in government aside from the governors and state legislatures who attempt to not comply with federal law (which is proving pretty effective in the case of pot).
The popular vote is irrelevant. It's a fun statistic, but it has no bearing on the outcome. If the popular vote determined the president, the voting outcome would have been drastically different because people vote based on the rules of the system. You don't score football by net yardage gained, you score it by points. Stop trying to change the rules after the fact.
I am a libertarian and I don't like Trump any more than any liberal, but I sure as hell am not going to advocate for a worse system of first past the post, single vote, popular elections.
Re: (Score:3)
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
It's rigged! RIGGED I TELL YOU!!
Oh? We won? Uh, nevermind. Don't investigate anything. Don't question the results.
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:4, Interesting)
It's horrifying to imagine a candidate not accepting the results of an election. Wait? We lost? The election was rigged I tell you!
Re: (Score:3)
It's horrifying to imagine a candidate not accepting the results of an election. Wait? We lost? The election was rigged I tell you!
To be fair, Hillary isn't the one questioning them.
If you're referring to her supporters, yes hypocrisy is on both sides of the aisle, and it's dumb either way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
Because we don't trust a Democrat led White House to necessarily report accurate findings from such "investigations". It's like asking why you're afraid when you just paid the mob your protection money. Do you really think they're going to be "protecting" you?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it's any comfort, there are several Republican Senators asking the same question. But really, whether you trust Obama or not, he was elected by the same rules that will put Trump in the White House. In other words, he has the legitimate constitutional authority to order such an investigation. Your trust in it is irrelevant.
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
A "power" then. Yes, a sitting President can order investigations on foreign powers attempting to influence domestic affairs.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ousted"could mean "lame duck"
It could, but it doesn't and never has.
Oust(ed) definition: Drive out or expel (someone) from a position or place.
Re: (Score:3)
He wasn't 'driven out' or 'expelled,' as he had no option of staying. He didn't run for a third term, he didn't declare himself President for Life. He'd have been leaving if Trump won, Clinton won, Sanders won, Stein won, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog won, whatever.
You can't be 'ousted' unless you'd otherwise still be in the position.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you're willing to simply invent whole new definitions for words, "ousted" could mean "pickle and onion sandwich". Of course, most of us here speak English, so the word "ousted" has a fairly specific meaning that doesn't include people who are ending a term.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you state something as a fact, you might want to check to see if it is so. A "Right" isn't the correct term, even if it was the correct term, it would require some sort of previous example or court case to outline, neither of which has happened here.
I don't see the point why you need to point out something irrelevant. Maybe the GP should say "the President can and is not illegal" instead?
Further this is 100% contrary to what Obama said here: [huffingtonpost.com]
What make you think that such order MUST MEAN something whic is a contrast to what he said? There are many other reasons for doing so (e.g. collecting data for political strategy in the future, etc.).
Not a surprise, when one who is on one side would always attempt to discredit the other side... That's why independents don't want to involve in either side...
Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score:4, Interesting)
Before you state something as a fact, you might want to check to see if it is so.
If you really think that ordering this review is not within the President's authority, you are nine kinds of high.
Further this is 100% contrary to what Obama said here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Funny how something "mythical" became "real" simply because the Democrats lost an election.
Apparently your prejudices have overwhelmed your ability to reason.Your article refers to Trump's unfounded claims of voter fraud in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, while the President's review of the known hacking activities does no such thing.
Unfounded allegations of fraud != hacks supported by actual evidence. See how one of these things is not like the other? The fact that you draw an equivalence between the two indicates weak-minded thinking on your part.
Re: (Score:2)
Jill Stein was just denied the Michigan recount. Did she have evidence of fraud? "No." "Do you think a recount will have you win?" "No." "Hillary doesn't think a recount will have her win. Do you?" "No." "You aren't even her and she should be the one asking, but she isn't. Denied."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, Trump won majority of Electoral College representatives, who probably will vote for him. Your millions voted for the losing candidate.
The only real discrepancies are from cities known for voting fraud and letting illegals vote; however even though Clinton had the majority in such places the Electoral College did its job and protected us from that particular criminal with no regard for rule of law.
We'll see how Trump regards law in federal office soon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama said voter fraud was mythical when he assumed that Clinton would win. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
So, which is it, mythical or real ?
Besides, the glaring deficiencies that have been found so far, have been in Clinton's favor. Facts are funny that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Voter fraud is mythical, it has been studied and it doesn't happen in nearly large enough numbers to be relevant.
This is not investigating voter fraud. Voter fraud involves people physically voting illegally. This is different from a hacking the voting machines to give an incorrect tally of votes, they are 2 different things and you acting like they are the same only indicates your lack of knowledge or understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how many times we have to explain to you morons the difference between election fraud and voter fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Your provably false statement about a person who "won by millions"?
No, you are ignorant. Elections in the USA don't work the way you imagine they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you also going to investigate all the "glaring discrepancies" in the DNC, that apparently deliberately sabotaged the Bernie Sanders campaign?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, not quite true. While private, they have to adhere to their incorporation charter. They ALSO have to abide by anti-fraud laws.
Honestly, the DNC should be sued and severely fined, for both of those violations.
Re: (Score:2)
They lost so that is punishment in itself. Maybe it is time for a competing centrist political party
Re: (Score:2)
So far he's picking up votes in every state where there is a recount. I guess that's working out well. Then again, if you're against the electoral college you're basically saying "fuck you" to everyone who doesn't live in a major city. Brilliant plan of course for the people who support that, that's how revolutions happen.
Re:President Obama should heed his own words (Score:5, Insightful)
How is ordering a review the same as undermining democracy? A review, if conducted fairly and openly, bolsters faith in democracy by ensuring that processes are transparent and due diligence is done. The review may well put to rest rumours that the Russians rigged the election. The seeds of doubt are already there - sown deliberately by Mr. Trump among others. Reviews and recounts are the only way to properly address those concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
He should be fair and review the criminal acts of both sides, not just of one side. But it shows how biased he is, sadly. 8 years ago, when he ran for president he was a real underdog. Now he is part of the corrupt establishment. Maybe because he couldn't do better and was forced to cooperate with it.
What "sides" are you talking about here? Donald Trump did not order his elite team of Russian hackers to break into the DNC and air Clinton's dirty laundry. Russia (presumably) did what Russia did for Russia's reasons.